The Selling of Pat Robertson’s Soul

Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani today, which actually surprised me. I figured the same guy who said that Muslims were worse than Hitler would pull for someone other than the most liberal man in the GOP race.

Robertson is supposed to be a champion for evangelical ideals. It seems only right to me that he would support a pro-life candidate that takes a hard stance on gay marriage. Instead, he does the exact opposite. Is this because he’s afraid that Giuliani is the only one that can beat Hillary? If so, that’s a poor excuse.

Pat Robertson has officially and publicly compromised the very principles he is supposed to support. How can anyone take him seriously now when he touts the pro-life cause?

I honestly didn’t even expect Robertson to support Giuliani in the general election, much less the primaries. At least James Dobson still has some sense of scruples. Apparently, Robertson will toss his principles out at the drop of a hat as long as Hillary Clinton isn’t in office.

Of all the people he could have endorsed including Mike Huckabee (the Baptist preacher), Mitt Romney (the Mormon with the exceptional family life), or Fred Thompson (member of the church of Christ with a great pro-life voting record), or even Episcopalian-turned-Baptist John McCain, he endorses Giuliani, the pro-choice, pro-gay mayor of New York City.

I guess it just goes to show that in the realm of presidential politics, even the most prominent of evangelicals have a price on their souls.

Post navigation

13 Responses to The Selling of Pat Robertson’s Soul

Pat Robertson sold is soul long before endorsing Guliani. He sold it when he endorsed the assasination of Hugo Chavez and when he claimed to know from God that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was an act of divine retribution for giving up territtory to the Arabs.

I’m mabye not one to judge, being a non-christian, but I thought cold blooded murder was against the 10 commandments and all of Jesus’ teachings. Of all the evangelical leaders Roberston is the least sane and, in my opinion, least ‘Christian’ of them all. That is unless you count intolerance as a christian virtue. I don’t know anyone but Fred Phelps of Westborough Baptist who would count that as a virtue.

I keep thinking Pat’s latest ranting is going to be his last as a respected public figure but he keeps clawing back up from the bottom of the hole he’s dug himself. This time will be no different. His followers will desert him on this in favor of Romney and he will have dug the hole a bit deeper for himself. He is slowly sinking into irrelevancy, and I think dementia as well, but so it goes.

@ TJ Thompson: Uhh… Mayor 9-11 is not a Libertarian in Republican’s clothing. He is a secular fascist. He is somewhat socially liberal, and I say somewhat because other than being pro-choice and anti-gun rights, he is not socially liberal, just ask a Democrat. Rudy is an authoritarian who endorses a police state. Given his pro-choice, gun control stance he is ill fit for the GOP, and given his authoritarianism in general, ill fit for the Democrats. But then again he is the ideal neocon… (He is a little better than Romney though. Romney was no different from Giuliani, until he decided to run for president, then he started pandering to the theocrats. At least Giuliani is somewhat more honest. If Ron Paul does not win, Giuliani will most likely be the nominee. Then when few people besides blue state neocons vote for Mayor 9-11, the Democrats will win. )

@ Braden

I would have thought Pat Robertson lost all credibility with his fans after calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez back in 2005. But Evangelical Christians did not seem to have any qualms with that. It was not until Pat “the Rat” Robertson endorsed a RINO candidate that Evangelicals started to notice that he is a hack. Pat Robertson is a fascist opportunist. Rudy Giuliani is a secular fascist. Pat Robertson is a theocratic fascist. The two have common ground.

Of course, Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani because as it stands, he seems most likely to win the nomination, and furthermore, Giuliani is one of the biggest hawks in the party. His only rivals are McCain, Hunter, and Tancredo, none of whom have any real shot at winning the nomination, let alone the election. Giuliani would be eager to escalate the situation with Iraq and go to Iran, and Robertson would be gleeful because that means more “heathen” Muslims dead, and that Rapture thing can happen. (I’m not sure how that’s supposed to work. Something about Jews ruling everything between the Suez Canal, Antioch, and the Euphrates. Then Babylon is supposed to be rebuilt…)

If you are looking for a “pro-life candidate that takes a hard stance on gay marriage” then the Republican party has options, not just Romney but Huckabee and those two Nazis (Hunter and Tancredo). The latter two have no shot of winning. Ron Paul and Fred Thompson are pro-life, but neither of them see queers getting married as a pressing issue. Also, Thompson has no plan and Ron Paul, being the only non-fascist to run in the GOP, would dismantle American imperial ventures (which are supposed to awaken Jesus somehow) and minimize the federal government, making it harder to legislate religious morality from a Washington-based theocracy. John McCain’s pro-life credentials are questionable, and on that issue are almost as bad as those of Rudy and Mitt (he does not care to overturn or even appeal Roe v. Wade). Plus like Giuliani, Paul, and Thompson, does not view queers getting married as a grave threat to civilization.

At the time, Huckabee was not as prominent, and given his miniscule campaign budget and fiscal liberalism, has still has little chance of winning anything (but a great potential to disrupt Mitt’s chances).

It is obvious that the key reason why Robertson did not endorse Romney is because he is a Mormon (besides the fact that Giuliani’s chances in the primaries and caucuses are better, and that Romney is somewhat less belligerant than Giuliani, or that Mitt is little better than Rudy on social issues seeing how he flip-flopped). But what would you expect from a bastion of religious tolerance like Pat Robertson? Do not be surprised if most other Evangelicals react similarly towards Romney’s Mormonism as Robertson did.

And I am not sure that the endorsement has anything to do with Giuliani being more likely than Romney to defeat Hillary (or any other Democrat) in the election. Fact is, Giuliani’s chances are almost surely a little better than Romney’s in the general election, but neither of them can beat Hillary, Obama, or whoever the nominee for the Democrats turns out to be.

Of course you say that James Dobson has some sense of scruples because he supported your candidate. He supported Romney for the same reason that Robertson supported Giuliani, because he seems likely to win the nomination. You also mention Huckabee, Romney, and Thompson, yet ommit Ron Paul, who is not only pro-life, with the credentials to prove it, but has the only sensible (or feasible) position on the issue. Yet you include McCain, while ommitting his pro-life credentials (or rather, lack thereof) and exempt Giuliani. McCain is little better than Romney or Giuliani on socially conservative issues. McCain has a shaky position on abortion but unlike Romney does not flip-flop overtly. His stance is rather inconsistent (claim to be anti-abortion but not oppose Roe v. Wade?). But the only thing you say about McCain is that he is a Baptist, strongly implying that you endorse him over Giuliani not for his (ostensibly) pro-life views, but because he is a Baptist whereas Giuliani is a Catholic. But then this means you would prefer a Mormon to a Catholic! The Roman Catholic Church is a mainstream denomination of Christianity, yet you would prefer someone from a cultish offshoot of Christianity to a Catholic?

Lest you read this as religious bigotry, I do not hate Mormons, nor do I have anything against LDS members, at least not as people, but I view the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a cultish organization. I am fairly secular and would have no problem with a Mormon running as a secular candidate, i.e. as someone who upholds the Mormon faith personally but keeps his religion to himself. But I find it troubling that a member of the Cult of JC of LDS would run on a religious values platform.

Translation: “I know you are but what am I?” Sorry, I am certifiably mad? I am devoid of any rationale or logic? That is why I posted arguments which you made no attempt to refute. Thanks for admitting defeat!

P.S. Good luck to your Commander in Thief! He may well win the nomination, but he will never be president.

Mitt changed his position abortion. He never changed back as would be implied by “flip flopping.”

If Ron Paul is so pro-life why did he vote against the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, along with 3 Unborn Victims of Violence Acts? His voting against those pieces of legislation makes his “pro-life” stance less credible. Besides, he doesn’t care for kidnapped children since he voted against the nationwide Amber alert system. Your candidate is a wild idealist with no shot at winning. I can’t wait until he is enveloped in defeat and the head of your movement has to end his political career.

It’s laughable to think Ron Paul could win the nomination, much less the White House itself. He got destroyed in 1988 as a Libertarian candidate (note Libertarian, not Republican). He couldn’t even win the Republican primary for a Senate seat in 1984. He has only won his district in Texas, and he may not even keep that if he loses his re-election bid against his challenger in the primary.

Look, just because you’re a bigot that hates Mormons and Baptists doesn’t mean everyone else in America is.

Look, don’t even waste your time. But this is the LAST post, I PROMISE. Just to clarify, I am not a bigot. But if you say I am, go ahead, believe what you want! After all, apparently it is the Ron Paul fans who have no connection with reality. That’s what his opponents will have you believe. But you believe whatever the f*** you want!

I’m sorry if I implied that you hold prejudices against Catholics (or that you prefer Baptists), but that is what your post lead me to believe. You gave an implicit endorsement of McCain but made NO MENTION of his apparently pro-life stance (which he rather tentatively holds) but mentioned his religion, suggesting to me that you are favoring him on that basis.

(Btw, the reason why Ron Paul voted against those pro-life legislations was because they authorized the FEDERAL government to regulate abortion, something that should be left to the states. Unlike your beloved Romney, Dr. Paul actually understands the Constitution. As for Mitt’s change of position, you echo the claim that he “flipped but did not flop” because he did not change back. I always figured a handful of gullible idiots buy that. I guess you’re one of them. That naive? You never heard of pandering?)

But my main concern, what the hell gives you the idea that I hate Baptists or Mormons. I could see why you would accuse me of anti-Mormon sentiment, though I deny it, but I wonder what gave you the idea that I don’t like Baptists? What have I said that could possibly lead to that conclusion? Are you drunk, high, or just stupid? You’re right I think I will change my mind on Ron Paul. No doubt one of the first acts he would do would be to abolish environmental and consumer safety agencies. There is enough lead and asbestos in your drinking water as it is.

As for Mormons, I specifically denied being a bigot and I denied hating Mormons, but if you do not believe me, fine. Go ahead, put words in my mouth. I am sure that would make your preferred candidate proud, seeing what a bastion of honesty and integrity he is. I think that Mormons are mostly good, decent people. I just think Mormon religion itself is cult-like, if not an actual cult. For instance, while I obviously do not think the Roman Catholic Church is a cult, I think that Opus Dei is, therefore SOME (i.e. not all) Catholics are cultists. Just because I think Mormonism is cultish does not mean I have to dislike Mormons as human beings. But apparently you are too stupid to understand that. In short you either misunderstood/misread what I said, in which case you are an idiot and have my pity, or you deliberately distorted my words, in which case you are a LIAR! Oh btw, Romney’s Mormonism (and his lack of honesty and integrity) is but one reason I would never support him. There is also the fact that he is an empty suit, and many other reasons. And his Mormonism would not be a concern were he to keep his faith personal.

Well, I wish we could have a civil discussion, but that is impossible. You either get angry and flame or insult me and Ron Paul or you lie and distort my comments (and accuse me of doing the aforementioned). I’m through talking to some reactionary redneck imbecile who refuses to get it.

You’re right that Giuliani is not a Libertarian. His anti-2nd Amendment stance makes that sufficiently clear, actually.

But in any event, Romney is the true conservative of the bunch. National Review, the president of the American Conservative Union, Robert Bork, editors at Newsmax: could these and more fantastic individuals be fooled so easily? I doubt it. If he’s conservative enough for Ann Coulter, he’s conservative enough for me, I would say.

I could not believe that Pat Robertson would shake the hand of a pro murderer and hope for him to lead this country. I always loved Pat Robertson, and this is a shock to my system. VOTE RON PAUL AND GET BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WILL HELP AMERICA. ROSS PEROT TRIED TO TELL AMERICA AND THEY WOULD NOT LISTEN, the media ruined him, just like they are trying to do to Paul. RON PAUL is our last chance to get FREE of Federal Govt. He is for us the people, by the people, not for big corporate America. He is even against the DEA and FDA so THIS SHOULD TELL YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL. i HATE AND DESPISE THE WAY OUR FEDERAL GOVT RULES OVER US, THEY HAVE SOLD US ALL OUT. WE ARE NOT FREE.